Which Bible Version is closest to the original Hebrew and Greek Texts?

[gordonhooker]

The original Greek and Hebrew versions.

 

[gordonhooker]

400th Year Anniversary of the Authorized King James Version of the Holy Bible, the KJV - 1611 - 2011

The King James Translators
The KJV Translators from Translators Revived

All new Bible versions are unauthorized versions in contradistinction to the Authorized Version of 1611--whether they be "Negro-centric" (I am a Negro), "Semitic" (I am a daughter of Abraham), etc.

"What about the translations of the Bible that existed before the Authorized Version, what is to made of them?"

Comparisons between King James and all Modern Versions
The KJV vs. Modern Bibles

I am still trying to my head around this post. Are you saying all other translations are somehow deficient because King James did not authorise them?

 

[JackRT]

I am still trying to my head around this post. Are you saying all other translations are somehow deficient because King James did not authorise them?

The King James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text (the Textus Receptus) that was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying. It was essentially the Greek text of the New Testament as edited by Beza, 1589, who closely followed that published by Erasmus, 1516-1535, which was based upon a few medieval manuscripts. The earliest and best of the eight manuscripts which Erasmus consulted was from the tenth century, and yet he made the least use of it because it differed most from the commonly received text; Beza had access to two manuscripts of great value, dating from the fifth and sixth centuries, but he made very little use of them because they differed from the text published by Erasmus. We now possess many more ancient manuscripts (about 9000 compared to just 10) of the New Testament, and thanks to another 400 years of biblical scholarship, are far better equipped to seek to recover the original wording of the Greek text. Much as we might love the KJV and the majesty of it’s Jacobean English, modern translations are more accurate.

 

[gordonhooker]

The King James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text (the Textus Receptus) that was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying. It was essentially the Greek text of the New Testament as edited by Beza, 1589, who closely followed that published by Erasmus, 1516-1535, which was based upon a few medieval manuscripts. The earliest and best of the eight manuscripts which Erasmus consulted was from the tenth century, and yet he made the least use of it because it differed most from the commonly received text; Beza had access to two manuscripts of great value, dating from the fifth and sixth centuries, but he made very little use of them because they differed from the text published by Erasmus. We now possess many more ancient manuscripts (about 9000 compared to just 10) of the New Testament, and thanks to another 400 years of biblical scholarship, are far better equipped to seek to recover the original wording of the Greek text. Much as we might love the KJV and the majesty of it’s Jacobean English, modern translations are more accurate.

Thank you Jack but that wasn’t point. I agree with all you said and was aware of that.

 

[jcox64]

If you take the time to watch the video that was posted you will clearly see that it does matter.

Some versions have made changes to the original meaning. Many of these changes revolve around the deity of Christ.

The speaker in the video recommended the Young's Literal.
I need to do some research into this one, myself.

After reading your comment, I sat for an hour watching/listening to this video and have to say I don't agree with what you said. He doesn't recommend Young's Literal. In fact, he continually recommends KJV! Especially towards the end, when he compares side by side other translations to KJV. This really disappointed me, because the KJV is a Catholic edited version of the Original Word. For Pete's sake, he is literally using the KJV for the entire video to show what he believes is the true translation!

 

[2tim_215]

I am still trying to my head around this post. Are you saying all other translations are somehow deficient because King James did not authorise them?

I'm saying King James is your safest bet. You'll have to ask someone else why it's called the authorized version. Perhaps because it's the most widely accepted of all versions.

 

[gordonhooker]

I'm saying King James is your safest bet. You'll have to ask someone else why it's called the authorized version. Perhaps because it's the most widely accepted of all versions.

I do not agree with that statement and argue that the formal translations based on earlier original language manuscripts would be the safest bet. That said I would always suggest a person doing serious Bible study should use as many different versions as possible. My library of Bibles includes KJV with the Apocrypha, NRSV, NASB, ESV, NIV, TEV, GNB, REB, NKJV and some of the older Roman Catholic versions.

In my opinion to lock oneself into a particular translation and not read widely is myopic and is religiously dangerous as it leads to tribalism.

 

[Natsumi Lam]

Doesn't matter

Why?

 

[hedrick]

I'm saying King James is your safest bet. You'll have to ask someone else why it's called the authorized version. Perhaps because it's the most widely accepted of all versions.

It's called authorized because it was authorized by King James and Anglican authorities. While there were several reasons for doing it, to some extent they were concerned about the theology present in early Protestant translations, and wanted to replace them with translations a bit more favorable to royal authority and Anglican ecclesiology.

 

[JackRT]

I'm saying King James is your safest bet. You'll have to ask someone else why it's called the authorized version. Perhaps because it's the most widely accepted of all versions.

It is called the authorized version because the translation was ordered by King James to his specifications. When those specifications were met to his satisfaction, he authorized it. That was his royal prerogative. Today we call it politics.

The King James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text (the Textus Receptus) that was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying. It was essentially the Greek text of the New Testament as edited by Beza, 1589, who closely followed that published by Erasmus, 1516-1535, which was based upon a few medieval manuscripts. The earliest and best of the eight manuscripts which Erasmus consulted was from the tenth century, and yet he made the least use of it because it differed most from the commonly received text; Beza had access to two manuscripts of great value, dating from the fifth and sixth centuries, but he made very little use of them because they differed from the text published by Erasmus. We now possess many more ancient manuscripts (about 9000 compared to just 10) of the New Testament, and thanks to another 400 years of biblical scholarship, are far better equipped to seek to recover the original wording of the Greek text. Much as we might love the KJV and the majesty of it’s Jacobean English, modern translations are more accurate.

The King James Version (1611) of the bible is by no means the first English translation. The Wyclif Bible was published in 1382, the Tyndale Bible in 1534, the Coverdale (Matthew) Bible in 1535, the Great Bible in 1539, the Geneva Bible in 1560, the Bishop’s Bible in 1568 and finally the Roman Catholic version, the Douai-Rhiems, in 1582 - 1610. Given the unmistakable similarities I suspect that the KJV was strongly influenced by the DRV. It is also worth noting that 80% of the Old Testament and 90% of the New Testament are incorporated directly from the Bishop’s Bible into the King James Version.

 

[Natsumi Lam]

It's The Holy Spirit who gives the understanding and He speaks every language fluently. There's no need to learn other languages or sit with 10 or 12 translations, a concordance and a language cross reference before you for Him to teach you.

Here is a good example of the need for Greek.

To be possessed by a demon means, in English, to be owned by a demon.

To be possessed by a demon means, in the Greek, to be inhabited by a demon.

Makes a huge difference,doesnt it, when you do deliverance?

 

[2tim_215]

I do not agree with that statement and argue that the formal translations based on earlier original language manuscripts would be the safest bet. That said I would always suggest a person doing serious Bible study should use as many different versions as possible. My library of Bibles includes KJV with the Apocrypha, NRSV, NASB, ESV, NIV, TEV, GNB, REB, NKJV and some of the older Roman Catholic versions.

In my opinion to lock oneself into a particular translation and not read widely is myopic and is religiously dangerous as it leads to tribalism.

And I say most of those versions were derived from Westcott and Hort which have all kinds of perversions in them. They were blasphemers and occultists. Compare them to the King James authors and there's no comparisons. I also believe that instead of the Textus Receptus they used the Latin Vulgate which was found in a trash can which is where most of your modern translations are derived from. Of course ti's your right to use whatever Bible you want. And as far as your errors are concerned, those were mostly copyist errors such as typos an they've all been corrected, rather easily. Here's just some examples of where they differ:

What's the Difference Between Various Bible Versions?

KJV vs. other versions of the Bible ~ Christian Bible Study Blog (CBSB)

 

[gordonhooker]

And I say most of those versions were derived from Westcott and Hort which have all kinds of perversions in them. They were blasphemers and occultists. Compare them to the King James authors and there's no comparisons. I also believe that instead of the Textus Receptus they used the Latin Vulgate which was found in a trash can which is where most of your modern translations are derived from. Of course ti's your right to use whatever Bible you want. And as far as your errors are concerned, those were mostly copyist errors such as typos an they've all been corrected, rather easily. Here's just some examples of where they differ:

What's the Difference Between Various Bible Versions?

KJV vs. other versions of the Bible ~ Christian Bible Study Blog (CBSB)

What a load of rubbish.

 

[2tim_215]

KJV vs. other versions of the Bible ~ Christian Bible Study Blog (CBSB)

What a load of rubbish.

Check out these links and decide for yourselves.

KJV vs Modern Bible Chart – Berean Bible Ministries

KJV vs Modern Bible Chart – Berean Bible Ministries

Quick Comparison of Bible Versions

Bible Version Comparison Charts

The KJV 1611 vs. The New Translations

Westcott & Hort
Heresies and blasphemies of Wescott & Hort
Westcott & Hort vs. Textus Receptus: Which is Superior?
The Westcott and Hort Only Controversy

 

[gordonhooker]

KJV vs. other versions of the Bible ~ Christian Bible Study Blog (CBSB)


Check out these links and decide for yourselves.

KJV vs Modern Bible Chart – Berean Bible Ministries

KJV vs Modern Bible Chart – Berean Bible Ministries

Quick Comparison of Bible Versions

Bible Version Comparison Charts

The KJV 1611 vs. The New Translations

Westcott & Hort
Heresies and blasphemies of Wescott & Hort
Westcott & Hort vs. Textus Receptus: Which is Superior?
The Westcott and Hort Only Controversy

When you find some serious biblical scholarship to make a point let me know. Pointing me at KJV only fruitcake sites simply does not cut it.

 

[2tim_215]

When you find some serious biblical scholarship to make a point let me know. Pointing me at KJV only fruitcake sites simply does not cut it.

You can trust your so-called scholars to lead you and guide you into all truth. I prefer the Holy Spirit to lead and guide me. There are literally hundreds of translations in English alone which I find rather confusing and we know that God is not the author of confusion. I know from personal experience that there's no question that cannot be answered in the King James and a Strong's concordance (the Strong's can help resolve any questions regarding the original Greek and Hebrew). I say pick your book and stick to it, especially for the new believer to avoid confusion. If you have great disdain to the King James then I suggest you pick something else keeping in mind when the King James was created was about the same time as the first printing press back in 1611, quite a bit before these other versions and since this was the first the that books could be mass produced it was understandable that there would be typos and copyist errors that would take some time to be eliminated. But the bottom line is that those mistakes would have nothing to do with doctrinal errors which have remained the same through the millennia.
Why are there so many versions of the Bible in English?

 

[BABerean2]

Much as we might love the KJV and the majesty of it’s Jacobean English, modern translations are more accurate.

Any Bible version that says "a young woman" conceived and bore a child, instead of "a virgin" should be thrown in the trash can.


.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Most Scholars I know of claim either the NASB or the ESV.

The problem we have nowadays, though, is many people using the KJV as the standard, not the original texts. So it creates a lot of confusion.

So sit with the Greek and see if you can read it...

The two best translations into English are the Douay Rheims, which was published before the KJV, and the Revised Standard Version-2nd Catholic Edition. These two are the most used by scholars and theologians in terms of English editions.
A good summary is found in the article, "Bible Translations Guide."
Also see a list and comments in the article, "Bible Versions and Commentaries."
.

I have never read the D R and when I looked at it's translation of Reve 11:2 it rendered "cast out" #1544 correctly instead of "leave out" as other versions render it.

Revelation 11:2 But exclude the courtyard outside the temple. Do not measure it, because it has been given over to the nations, and they will trample the holy city for 42 months.

Douay-Rheims Bible
But the court, which is without the temple, cast out, and measure it not: because it is given unto the Gentiles, and the holy city they shall tread under foot two and forty months:

Darby Bible Translation
And the court which [is] without the temple cast out, and measure it not; because it has been given [up] to the nations, and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty-two months.

YLT rendered #3485 correctly "sanctuary"

Young's Literal Translation
11:2
and the court that is without the sanctuary leave out, and thou mayest not measure it, because it was given to the nations, and the holy city they shall tread down forty-two months;

[T-R]Revelation 11:2
and the Court/fold<833>, without of the Sanctuary<3485>, be casting-out!<1544> out-side, and no it thou should be measuring, that it was given to the nations
and the holy City they shall be treading<3961> forty two months.

New American Standard Bible
"Leave out the court which is outside the temple and do not measure it, for it has been given to the nations; and they will tread under foot the holy city for forty-two months.

King James Bible
But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

Greek New Testament - Parallel Greek New Testament by John Hurt

Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus
kai thn aulhn thn eswqen tou naou ekbale exw kai mh authn metrhshV oti edoqh toiV eqnesin
kai thn polin thn agian pathsousin mhnaV tessarakonta duo
Byzantine Majority
kai thn aulhn thn exwqen tou naou ekbale exw kai mh authn metrhshV oti edoqh toiV eqnesi
kai thn polin thn agian pathsousi mhnaV tessarakonta kai duo
Alexandrian
kai thn aulhn thn exwqen tou naou ekbale exwqen kai mh authn metrhshV oti edoqh toiV eqnesin
kai thn polin thn agian pathsousin mhnaV tesserakonta [kai] duo
Hort and Westcott
kai thn aulhn thn exwqen tou naou ekbale exwqen kai mh authn metrhshV oti edoqh toiV eqnesin
kai thn polin thn agian pathsousin mhnaV tesserakonta kai duo

My translation of Reve chapt 1

Revelation Chapter 1 Verses



..

 

[MMDave3]

If there's one thing I've learned over time while searching for the "best" English translation, it's that there isn't one. Searching and stressing over it is only going to give you a headache. I've read the KJV, NRSV, and I have a copy of the NKJV on it's way to my house. After that I'll pick up another translation, maybe the NASB or ESV. Plus I am growing to enjoy collecting Bibles.

 

[High Fidelity]

If there's one thing I've learned over time while searching for the "best" English translation, it's that there isn't one. Searching and stressing over it is only going to give you a headache. I've read the KJV, NRSV, and I have a copy of the NKJV on it's way to my house. After that I'll pick up another translation, maybe the NASB or ESV. Plus I am growing to enjoy collecting Bibles.

The NASB and ESV are both great. They're both widely considered two of the most accurate translations.